ReviewBrain sciences2026
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation on Upper Limb Function Recovery in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) have each demonstrated potential benefits for upper limb motor recovery in stroke patients. Their combined use has been hypothesized to produce synergistic/additive effects by engaging both central and peripheral neuroplasticity. This review aims to provide updated evidence on the effects of combined tDCS with PES on upper limb motor function and activity performance in stroke patients.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, six databases were searched. A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis were completed. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, risk of bias was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsTwelve RCTs involving 449 participants were included in this review. Adding motor-level PES to tDCS demonstrated a significant benefit on FMA-WH (MD = 1.53; 95% CI = 0.38 to 2.68;
conclusionsThis review revealed that the current evidence, although of very low certainty, does not demonstrate a clear synergistic/additive effect of combined tDCS and PES on upper limb motor function recovery after stroke (which may be due to the substantial heterogeneity and various state-dependent responses across cohorts). Current evidence suggests a potential ADL improvement after stroke by pairing tDCS and PES with conventional rehabilitation; however, this was of very low certainty which requires future studies to further validate. Future studies should use factorial designs (comparing tDCS with PES, tDCS alone, PES alone, and sham or standard therapy control) to further verify the effect of pairing tDCS and PES on upper limb function after stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.